LAWS(PAT)-2010-9-272

RANJANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 29, 2010
Ranjana Devi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.8.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1813 of 2003 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 120(B) and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who was own brother of petitioner no.2, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1813 of 2003 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar against the wife of petitioner no.2 i.e. petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.2 and others including his father, who was at that very time alive. It was alleged in the complaint petition that father of petitioner no.1 had transferred land of share of complainant to the petitioner no.1. The complainant has asserted that even the land which was purchased by him in the name of his mother was also transferred by his father to petitioner no.1. It was alleged that it was an Act of commission of serious offence and as such complaint was filed. After filing the complaint petition and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 7.8.2007, took cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal code.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bhola Prasad that it was hardly a case of civil dispute. It was submitted that it was not a case that any fictitious person had executed the deed, but father of the petitioner no.2 as well as complainant had transferred the land by registered deed: According to learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of averment made in the complaint petition no offence can be made out. It can hardly be termed as a case of civil dispute. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order.